Well assuming the pro Linux arguments are true, you could conclude that:
1)Windows is only it's current size due to bloat, it could actually be much smaller.
2)Linux on the other hand, is as large if not larger, but crams in all sorts of non bloated stuff that makes it more powerful, stable etc. but can't avoid being overly large.
Linux surely cannot be bloated. Linux is susposed to have a massive kernel, this is dangerous for a proprietary OS and is avoided. Due to it's open source aspect, people can track down and fix all the problems from it's size. So you get the extra power from a large kernel, without all the hassles. If this is not true, then Linux would not have had an out of control growth cycle... because no one would use it.
As for your browser point, im amazed that you don't know the answer to this question. I certainly do(and im a n00b who can barely use that damn thing), oh might as well brag and show my competence.
In windows 98 and onwards you cannot uninstall Internet Explorer. In Linux you can use a file browser or a net browswer... well in Gnome anyways, I can't remember about KDE. You can uninstall Konquerer and Galeon anyways. Internet Explorer has alot of problems, so this damages the reliability(and security) of the operating system because you MUST use it to browse for files.
You are right in theory, why can Microsoft do one thing, and Linux get away with doing that same thing? That's because double standards aren't always evil, sometimes there is a reason for the standards. If Microsoft gave you the option to uninstall IE and use Windows Explorer, in addition to having an awesome browser(if you MUST be stuck with IE all the time), they would be excused.
[ October 19, 2002: Message edited by: lazygamer ]
